MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Augmentation of the narrow traumatized anterior alveolar ridge to facilitate dental implant placement

2003· review· en· W2169872265 on OpenAlexaff
Kyösti Oikarinen, George K.B. Sándor, Vesa T. Kainulainen, M. A. M. Salonen‐Kemppi

Bibliographic record

VenueDental Traumatology · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationToronto General HospitalHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersCore Research for Evolutional Science and TechnologyKuwait University
KeywordsDentistryAlveolar ridgeMedicineBone graftingDental alveolusResorptionAlveolar crestOsteotomyOrthodonticsImplantSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traumatic tooth loss leads to alveolar resorption especially in sagittal direction. This can be due to avulsion of bone substance during the accident itself or due to resorption of the alveolar crest that takes place afterwards. Shortage of bone can prevent proper positioning of dental implants unless the volume of bone is increased before implantation. In the maxillary anterior area, this is also an esthetic problem. Several treatment modalities have been presented to augment the bone. This report reviews the latest literature on bone grafting, bone substitutes, guided bone regeneration, osteocompression and distraction which are potentially useful in the anterior maxilla. A special emphasis is paid to the versatility of using a crestal split osteotomy, by means of chisels and osteotomes to widen the narrow ridge. Three examples are illustrated showing onlay grafting, preservation of alveolar width with alloplastic coral material and lateral widening of a narrow maxillary alveolar ridge, using the crestal splitting technique.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations84
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDental TraumatologySame topicDental Implant Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207